Is it sometimes necessary in order to protect life to sacrifice a little liberty? To what degree have we given up liberty to ensure personal security? Is this a bad thing?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
this is a rough question to answer from my own personal perspective simply because we all have different ideas of liberty. so as a community, as a whole, of course it is necessary to sacrifice liberty to a certain extent. for example, if joeys idea of liberty is being entitled to go on a streaking(nude) rampage down sunset boulevard, it may create a sense of havoc. so to an extent it is necessary. now to come to a sense of conclusion of what degree we should limit ourselves is where it gets "sticky" i do not have an overall answer for this but obviously we as "the people" slowly figure it out along the way. is it a bad thing? of course it is. but it may also be the best thing. in my eyes, if you truly want ultimate freedom, you can find it.
1)
I do not think it is necessary to sacrifice a little liberty to protect life. However, I think it is necessary in order to ensure one's peace of mind about their security of life. I can't help but to think back on the writings of Locke and Hobbes:
Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society. (wikipedia)
In the natural world everyone can and must fend for themselves, and that is the gift/burden of natural freedom. If you want a sense of security, you must be willing to confine yourself to a common set of rules. Here in the US we have done just that, inturn giving up some freedom but ultimately gaining a sense of protection for our lives and possessions. It is not at all a bad thing.
We are not allowed to murder people randomly on the street, yet this makes for a much safer and secure society. So I believe that is an example that supports the idea of personal liberty being taken away to ensure security. Another obvious example is the patriot acts, in which the government seemingly violates an individuals right to privacy in order for national security purposes in a time of war. This example is more controversial because it is more invasive on the personal liberties of american citizens. It makes you question where do we draw the line with regards to giving up personal liberty for security.
In the movie team America, they have a song that says that freedom isn't free. Now if you have seen the movie, you know that it is completely satire the hole time. But I think there is some truth in it. Freedom isn't free. Nor is it total and complete. We cant just go around doing stupid things that endanger peoples lives. But we do have a lot of freedoms that other places don't. So yes, i do think that it is necessary to sacrifice some liberty in order to protect rights and lives of others.
I don't think that negative liberty necessarily leads to chaos at all. I think it can, but I also think positive liberty could have that effect. If you look at any classic dystopian novel (Brave New World, 1984, etc.), those societies all seem to have some form of positive liberty that may have started out well but has been corrupted or has devolved into excessive regulation. Also, just look at the controversy surrounding the "octo-mom" - positive liberty, to the degree that we have it, has allowed her to benefit tremendously from our tax dollars, and people seem to be pretty upset about that. I think more positive liberty would actually just end up increasing the chaos and making situations like this more common.
Allison Wachtel
Post a Comment